What if gravity is actually a repulsive force, exhibited by vacuum space and somehow inhibited by mass?

What if the entire fundamentals of our perspective are completely wrong and assumed, and we don't walk on our feet and legs, holding ourselves up as we allow our hands to wave through the air - what if up is down and we are like geckos on the ceiling, hands keeping us pushed away from the mass, hands dangling in space, waving?

The models would still work, the formulas still be correct, it's just that everything is back to front?

The way I understand it Einstein's theory basically trumps Newton's. So gravity is not actually a "force" that acts directly on objects but the result of the result of mass warping the fabric of space and time. And Einstein's theory has been tested repeatedly over the past century:

yurimon, that video you posted above in comment to ukit's post, has this description:

"Simon lays down the simple facts which obliterate several of the pillars of egghead mythematical psyence, which is owned by the energy barons, other insidious corporate war mongering sources and central banking parasites.

Quackademic theories sold in corporate controlled schools, are just mind control garbage which enslaves humanity to false ideas like explosion based technologies which burn the fuels they sell at top dollar.

These fuels have required the murder of millions of innocent people in oil baring lands, so that this illegal and degenerate godless system of control may continue as long as possible for the lying shysters who own this world.

This goal, if realized, could make an array of fantastical-sounding technologies commercially viable, from power grids that never lose energy and cheap water purification systems to magnetically levitating vehicles.

What would be the point of 25yrs research? hundreds of scientists and experiments? Peer reviewed papers? if there was no anomalous results? Universities are not in the habit of pissing money up the wall on 'woo woo"Morning_star

if there was no anomalous results? Universities are not in the habit of pissing money up the wall on 'woo woo"Morning_star

Look, if you want to start trading insults that's fine with me. I'd rather understand your rather dogmatic scientific position and how you are so certain there is no value in the PEAR labs evidence, for instance.Morning_star

scientific position and how you are so certain there is no value in the PEAR labs evidence, for instance.Morning_star

lab was running for decades, shut down in 2007, and only had a handful of shaky papers with mostly invalid claims and assumptionsmonospaced

Actually, you and Ham are far more in common. You have no requirements for actual evidence to support your nonsense beliefs.hereswhatidid

Ham's mind is shut, like yours. There is existing provision in Quantum Theory for this kind of phenomena. As I have pointed out, observation and intent may well have an influence on results so replication is an issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Morning_star

out, observation and intent may well have an influence on results so replication is an issue. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Morning_star

Well, you continue down that path then, I have nothing else to add to this discussion.hereswhatidid

^ First, that is just a blog post of the 3rd publication or an experiment that AT BEST, is "consistent" with one approach/interpretation.

I quote them directly, "Note that consistency doesn't necessarily mean that von Neumann's approach is the only valid interpretation."

While it might be peer-reviewed and scientific, it's not conclusive by any stretch of the definition, and certainly would never, ever in any reality be used to support the claim that science is a belief system.

Also, the "peer reviewed" paper is by a guy who's a "scientist" at the Noetic Institute. That institute is, by definition, fringe science and is certainly not taken very seriously by peers in the field. Just sayin, since you thought you actually found something.

@mono The results of those experiments are valid, peer reviewed and replicable - the things that you have said are the only things that count in science.The interpretation of those results is worthy of further consideration but the results still show that consciousness has had an influence on a material systems.Now you say that because it comes from the edges of science it's not worth consideration even though it ticks all of the boxes you require for validity.

Science is full of belief, probability and theory. All of which are supported with experimental results. For several weeks last year, the majority of the world BELIEVED that we'd found stuff that travelled faster than the speed of light.Morning_star

several weeks last year, the majority of the world BELIEVED that we'd found stuff that travelled faster than the speed of light. Those people who reported this were reputable mainstream scientists. It just not as black and white as you're making it.Morning_star

of light. Those people who reported this were reputable mainstream scientists. It just not as black and white as you're making it.Morning_star

If psychic powers are real like Dean Radin says, wouldn't this be pretty easy to demonstrate? Why would we need to be arguing over whether his experiments were peer reviewed, when you could just film someone levitating an object or predicting a future event?

There are lots of experiments with peer reviewed results looking at Remote Viewing, Telekenetic Influence, Prediction, Placebo etc. The fact is that most of it is never considered due to the dogma of mainstream science.Morning_star

Placebo etc. The fact is that most of it is never considered due to the dogma of mainstream science. Scientists fear the taboo of 'paranormal'.Morning_star

I watched that ^ video. I heard lots of different theories about 'nothing' and the start of the universe; some based on quantum physics, some based on multiple universes, some philosophical explanations, some based in traditional physics. The five scientists on the panel cold not agree on anything let alone a consistent demonstrable solution. Yet each of the scientists had faith in the validity of their particular theory even though it would contradict other explanations.

If you replaced each of the scientists with a representative from different faiths and asked them a similar question there would be an almost identical clash of ideas but from a theological perspective.

Given this particular scientific question all the answers were based on nothing more than belief.

Hey hereswhatidid, what do you think of that video? You know what an opinion is don't you?Morning_star

My opinion is that you are completely incorrect in your definition of belief and how that relates to scientific knowledge.hereswhatidid

None of those people have "faith" in their ideas. They have reached conclusions based on their own research. Faith is blindly believing something regardless of evidencehereswhatidid

blindly believing in something regardless of the evidence for or against it.hereswhatidid

Belief in a god creator is exactly the same as believing in a purely material explanation for the 'first cause'. Just because the belief falls under a science heading doesn't make it any more plausible.Morning_star

falls under the heading 'science' doesn't make it any more plausible.Morning_star

Explain then. Treat me like the idiot you think I am. All you ever do is dismiss and bitch without explanation. I'm starting to think you know nothing other what you've heard from the cool atheist types.Morning_star

you know nothing other what you've heard from the cool atheist types.Morning_star

The difference between science and faith has been explained to you several times. It's a waste of a decent thread having to do that again.hereswhatidid

Oh there's a surprise, no opinion, no insight again. You are an empty vessel quite suited to the 'biological machine' description. I'll try to make myself clearer, the humans involved in science and religion exhibit the SAME behavior when faced with first cause type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing...Morning_star

I'll try to make myself clearer, the humans involved in science and religion exhibit the SAME behavior when faced with first cause type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star

type questions (watch the video). If you think that the label 'science' gives the debate any more insight or credibility when dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star

dealing with a question of this type then you are deluded. I understand the difference between Religion and Science very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star

very well, what I am suggesting is that there is little difference between the two when dealing with questions of this type.Morning_star

They are theorizing about stuff that goes to the limit of what we currently understand. 100 years ago scientists debated about the existence of the atom, and a lot of people thought that was a ridiculous theory, but eventually we got the evidence proving it was true.

So yeah a lot of it is theorizing that could be right or wrong, but I don't see how that's the same as religion. Religions are all based on books and stories that people came up with thousands of years ago, and there isn't any room for new theories or ideas, in fact they used to torture and execute people just for suggesting them :)